Comfortina 32 vs Roue 20
How do the Comfortina 32 and Roue 20 compare? Below, their dimensions, displacement, sail area and the standard design ratios side by side, followed by a data-driven summary.
Comfortina 32 
Roue 20 | Comfortina 32 | Roue 20 | |
|---|---|---|
| Length overall | 31.2 ft9.50 m | 31.0 ft9.45 m |
| Waterline length | 24.0 ft7.32 m | 21.0 ft6.40 m |
| Beam | 10.7 ft3.27 m | 8.0 ft2.44 m |
| Draft | 5.6 ft1.70 m | 4.2 ft1.28 m |
| Displacement | 9,921 lb4,500 kg | 4,700 lb2,132 kg |
| Ballast | 3,968 lb1,800 kg | —— |
| Sail area | 646 ft²60.0 m² | 382 ft²35.5 m² |
| SA / Displacement | 22.39 | 21.78 |
| Displacement / Length | 320 | 227 |
| Comfort ratio | 24.8 | 19.0 |
| Capsize screening | 2.00 | 1.91 |
| Hull speed (kn) | 6.6 | 6.1 |
| Average used price | €29,000 | — |
Comfortina 32 vs Roue 20: the short version
- The Comfortina 32 and Roue 20 are close in length (31.2 ft9.50 m vs 31.0 ft9.45 m ).
- The Comfortina 32 is heavier, displacing about 111% more, which usually means a steadier but slower-to-accelerate hull.
- On sail area/displacement the Comfortina 32 carries the more powerful rig (22.4 vs 21.8), favouring lighter-air performance.
- The Comfortina 32 scores higher on the Brewer comfort ratio, suggesting an easier motion in a seaway.
- By the capsize screening formula the Roue 20 rates better for offshore work (1.91 vs 2.00).
Ratios are guidelines computed from published specs; condition, layout and gear matter as much as the numbers.